| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait |
| Date: | 2020-11-10 01:32:13 |
| Message-ID: | 2087667.1604971933@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
>> + LWLockAcquire(ProcArrayLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
>> + MyProc->vacuumFlags |= PROC_IN_SAFE_IC;
>> + ProcGlobal->vacuumFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->vacuumFlags;
>> + LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
> I can't help noticing that you are repeating the same code pattern
> eight times. I think that this should be in its own routine, and that
> we had better document that this should be called just after starting
> a transaction, with an assertion enforcing that.
Do we really need exclusive lock on the ProcArray to make this flag
change? That seems pretty bad from a concurrency standpoint.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-11-10 01:39:57 | Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-11-10 01:28:26 | Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait |